This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-10-63R
entitled 'Integrity Committee's Process to Address Allegations of
Wrongdoing by Inspectors General' which was released on November 16,
2009.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
GAO-10-63R:
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
October 15, 2009:
The Honorable Charles E. Grassley:
Ranking Member:
Committee on Finance:
United States Senate:
The Honorable Bart Gordon:
Chairman:
Committee on Science and Technology:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Brad Miller:
Chairman:
Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight:
Committee on Science and Technology:
House of Representatives:
Subject: Integrity Committee's Process to Address Allegations of
Wrongdoing by Inspectors General:
This report responds to your request that we review the activities of
the Integrity Committee (Committee) of the President's Council on
Integrity and Efficiency (PCIE) and the Executive Council on Integrity
and Efficiency (ECIE) used to address allegations of wrongdoing by
federal statutory inspectors general (IGs). Executive Order No. 12993,
Administrative Allegations Against Inspectors General, signed by the
President on March 21, 1996, provided the Integrity Committee of the
PCIE and ECIE with the authority to receive, review, and refer for
investigation allegations of wrongdoing against IGs and certain staff
members of the IG offices. At the time of our review there were
statutory IG offices in 67 federal agencies, departments, and entities.
The Executive Order provides the Committee this authority over IG staff
members whose activities are known to the IG or when the allegation
against the staff person is related to an allegation against the IG.
The IG Reform Act of 2008 (Reform Act) superseded the Executive Order
but maintains the functions of the Integrity Committee with additional
authorities, reporting requirements, and responsibilities.[Footnote 1]
The IGs have a unique role within their agencies to identify areas for
improved economy, efficiency, and effectiveness through independent and
objective oversight; prevent and detect fraud, waste, abuse, and
mismanagement; and recommend corrective actions. This role requires
that IGs and their staff maintain the highest level of integrity and
accountability within their own offices. Over the years, concerns have
been raised about the transparency of the process for handling
allegations of wrongdoing against IGs and their staff. As agreed with
your offices, this report describes (1) the Committee's process for
addressing allegations of wrongdoing against IGs, (2) whether the
Committee adhered to its process as described in Executive Order No.
12993 and implementing policy and procedures, and (3) the effect of the
Reform Act on the Committee's process.
To describe the Integrity Committee's process, we reviewed the
requirements of Executive Order No. 12993 and the Committee's November
2004 and February 2007 implementing policy and procedures that were in
effect at the time of our review. To determine whether the Committee
adhered to the Executive Order and the policy and procedures, we
obtained and reviewed the case files for all of the 165 allegations
received and closed during the 3-year period of January 1, 2005,
through December 31, 2007. This period represents the last three full
calendar years that the Integrity Committee addressed allegations under
the requirements of the Executive Order. From the case files, we
obtained information about the various allegations, including the
sources, subjects, and nature of the allegations, and the actions taken
by the Committee to resolve them and close the case files. We compared
this information with the requirements of the Executive Order and the
Integrity Committee's implementing policy and procedures. During our
review of these files, we also consulted with officials of the
Integrity Committee to obtain explanations or additional documentation.
We did not provide additional review of the merits of individual
allegations brought before the Integrity Committee and therefore do not
comment on the professional judgment applied by the Committee to
address them. Finally, we analyzed the relevant provisions of the
Reform Act to identify and assess any changes that affect the
Committee's responsibility to address allegations of wrongdoing by IGs
and their staff.
We conducted this performance audit from April 2008 through August 2009
in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that
the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and
conclusions based on our audit objectives.
Results In Brief:
The Integrity Committee is responsible for receiving, reviewing, and
referring for investigation, allegations of wrongdoing by IGs and
certain staff. The Committee receives allegations from government
contractors, private citizens, IG employees, and those who remain
anonymous through phone calls, e-mails, and letters. The Integrity
Committee may refer the allegations it receives to the Public Integrity
Section of the:
Department of Justice (DOJ) to determine whether, if substantiated they
would constitute a violation of federal criminal law. If a criminal
investigation is warranted the Public Integrity Section refers the
matter to the appropriate law enforcement agency. The Integrity
Committee reviews all allegations of administrative misconduct that are
not criminal in nature to determine if they fall within its
jurisdiction, and if so the Committee may perform an administrative
investigation or take steps to close the matters.
We reviewed case files for 165 allegations that the Integrity Committee
opened and closed during calendar years 2005 through 2007 and found
that the Committee's activities were consistent with the requirements
of Executive Order No. 12993 and the Committee's implementing policy
and procedures. The Integrity Committee received allegations about IGs
and their staff in 35 separate federal agencies and entities. The
nature of the wrongdoing reported in the allegations involved seven
areas of alleged misconduct that included the failure to investigate
certain matters, and the mismanagement, waste, and abuse of government
resources. DOJ determined that none of these allegations warranted a
criminal investigation. The Integrity Committee reviewed the
allegations for administrative misconduct and determined that 93 of the
165 allegations were within its jurisdiction because they alleged
wrongdoing by an IG or an IG staff member acting with the knowledge of
the IG. For those allegations within its jurisdiction, the Integrity
Committee conducted 2 separate investigations that addressed 41
allegations. The Integrity Committee closed the remaining 52
allegations within its jurisdiction (1) because the matters were within
the IG's discretion to decide where to apply audit and investigative
resources, (2) after additional information was obtained indicating a
lack of evidence of wrongdoing, (3) after referral of allegations to
the responsible IG for action when no indication of wrongdoing is
determined, or (4) after referral of the allegations to an agency with
jurisdiction. In addition, the Integrity Committee determined that 72
allegations were outside its jurisdiction because they involved lower
level IG staff or agency officials, and failed to demonstrate
administrative misconduct against an IG or IG staff member acting with
the knowledge of the IG.
The Reform Act continues the functions carried out by the Integrity
Committee under Executive Order No. 12993 but with the permanence of
statute. In addition, the Reform Act provides new guidance and greater
transparency over the Committee's activities. Specifically, the Reform
Act requires:
* IGs to annually designate the positions of staff subject to Integrity
Committee review;
* the Integrity Committee to establish policies and procedures
necessary to ensure fairness and consistency in its investigations,
such as providing the person under investigation the opportunity to
respond, which may help to facilitate the Committee's investigations;
and:
* the Integrity Committee to provide the results of its investigations
to congressional committees, agency heads, and the President shortly
after completion, and to annually report by December 31 to Congress and
the President on certain activities during the preceding fiscal year as
specified by the act, which significantly enhances transparency of the
Committee's process.
In addition, the Integrity Committee has revised its policy and
procedures to implement the Reform Act. Among other things, its revised
policy changed the definition of administrative misconduct so that it
includes the review of conduct so serious that it may undermine the
independence or integrity reasonably expected of an IG or senior IG
staff member.
Background:
Prior to the Reform Act, the IGs established by the IG Act of 1978
[Footnote 2] and subsequent amendments (IG Act) met and coordinated as
two separate councils as provided by Executive Order No. 12805,
Integrity and Efficiency in Federal Programs (May 11, 1992). The IGs
appointed by the President with Senate confirmation were part of PCIE
and IGs appointed by their agency heads in designated federal entities
defined by the IG Act were part of ECIE.[Footnote 3] The mission of the
two councils was to coordinate and enhance the work of the IGs, and the
Integrity Committee was part of these councils. The Deputy Director for
Management of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) chaired both
councils and had responsibilities regarding the Integrity Committee's
investigations.
Congress enacted the Reform Act to enhance IG independence and
accountability. Congress maintained the existing framework and IG
community and added authorities and requirements to help build a
stronger, more independent, professional, and accountable IG community.
[Footnote 4] For example, the Reform Act combined the existing councils
(PCIE and ECIE) into one IG Council (CIGIE), which continues to address
integrity, economy, and effectiveness issues, but the act allows CIGIE
to operate under statutory authority for the entire IG community and
provides additional resources and authorities.[Footnote 5] Similarly,
the Reform Act continues the Integrity Committee's authority to address
allegations of wrongdoing as part of an IG council and provides
additional authorities and requirements.
The Reform Act also maintains the OMB Deputy Director for Management's
responsibilities regarding the Integrity Committee's activities. Under
both the Executive Order and the Reform Act, the Integrity Committee
consists of (1) an official of the Federal Bureau of Investigation
(FBI) who serves as the Integrity Committee Chairperson; (2) the
Special Counsel of the Office of Special Counsel; (3) the Director of
the Office of Government Ethics; and (4) representative IGs. Further,
the Chief of the Public Integrity Section of the Criminal Division of
DOJ served as an advisor to the Integrity Committee under the Executive
Order and continues as a legal advisor under the Reform Act. In
addition, the Integrity Committee Chairperson appoints a Working Group
that may be composed of FBI employees or the staff of CIGIE members to
assist in the Chairperson's responsibilities and to handle all
correspondence. (See enclosures I, II, and III for a current listing of
the federal agencies, departments, and entities with statutory IG
offices.)
During passage of the Reform Act bill, the House of Representatives
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform noted that to preserve the
credibility of an IG's office, IGs must also perform their duties with
integrity and apply the same standards of conduct and accountability to
themselves as they apply to the agencies that they audit and
investigate.[Footnote 6] The House Committee expressed concern that a
lack of consistent and credible mechanisms for investigating and
resolving allegations of misconduct by Inspectors General may threaten
accountability and credibility.[Footnote 7] Similarly, the Senate
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs noted that with
greater IG autonomy there is a heightened risk of IGs abusing their
power.[Footnote 8] The Senate Committee recognized that the IGs are not
immune from real or alleged misconduct or mismanagement and it is
critical that there be an effective and credible mechanism to address
complaints about IGs when they arise.[Footnote 9]
A combination of alleged troubling instances of IG misconduct,
misunderstood procedures of the existing Integrity Committee, and a
lack of transparency over the Committee's actions and processes led
Congress to provide additional authorities and requirements involving
the Integrity Committee. For example, the Senate Committee on Homeland
Security and Governmental Affairs reported that because Congress had no
systematic or assured way to learn of serious allegations against an IG
or to learn of the results of an investigation into those allegations,
the Reform Act would require the Integrity Committee to notify Congress
of its procedures, and prepare regular reports on the investigations it
undertakes in hopes of providing an oversight process that is more
transparent and more accountable than that under the Executive Order.
[Footnote 10]
The Integrity Committee Process:
The Integrity Committee process for addressing allegations of
wrongdoing includes activities for the receipt, review, and referral
for investigation of allegations leading to closure of the matters by
the committee. (See figure 1.) The Integrity Committee developed
implementing policy and procedures to reflect the requirements in
Executive Order No. 12993, and the Committee continues to carry out
this basic process under the Reform Act using its revised implementing
policy and procedures.
The Integrity Committee Working Group at FBI Headquarters receives
allegations from government contractors, private citizens, IG
employees, and those who remain anonymous through phone calls, e-mails,
and letters. The Working Group opens case files for the allegations
which are numbered to correspond with sources that often make multiple
allegations. The Working Group conducts an initial review of each
complaint to determine whether it is within the Integrity Committee's
jurisdiction, or may request additional information from the
complainant if the complaint lacks sufficient detail.
Figure 1: Activities of the Integrity Committee:
[Refer to PDF for image: process diagram]
Integrity Committee Working Group receives allegations from various
sources and opens case files;
Integrity Committee reviews allegations;
* Public Integrity Section of DOJ reviews allegations for possible
criminal action;
* Law enforcement agency receives allegations if warranted.
Integrity Committee determines that allegations are not within its
jurisdiction; or;
Integrity Committee determines that allegations are within its
jurisdiction;
* Integrity Committee determines that an investigation will be
conducted.
Executive Chairperson of CIGIE reviews the results of the investigation
and resolves the matters;
Integrity Committee closes cases based on:
* Frivolous allegations lacking merit;
* Matters within IG discretion;
* Additional information lacking evidence;
* Referral to the responsible IG;
* Referral to an agency with jurisdiction;
* Resolution of investigative matters by CIGIE Executive Chairperson.
Source: GAO analysis of Executive Order No. 12993, the Reform Act,
Integrity Committee case files and implementing policy and procedures.
[A] The Integrity Committee may request additional information from
either the sources or the subjects of the allegations during their
review.
[B] DOJ determined that none of the allegations in our review warranted
criminal investigation.
[C] Under Executive Order No. 12993 this function was performed by the
Chairperson of PCIE and ECIE.
[End of figure]
Under the Executive Order, complaints fell within the Integrity
Committee's jurisdiction when wrongdoing was alleged on the part of an
IG or staff members of the IG's office whose activities were known to
the IG or when the allegation against a staff person was related to an
allegation against the IG. The Reform Act also requires that
allegations of wrongdoing by IGs be included in the Integrity
Committee's jurisdiction but defines IG staff to be any staff that
report directly to the IG or are designated by the IG to be subject to
Integrity Committee review.[Footnote 11] The Integrity Committee may
close a case if it determines that the allegation is frivolous, not
supported by meaningful documentation, and lacks potential merit. In
addition, the Integrity Committee may determine that the matters in the
allegation are within an IG's discretion to decide, and therefore close
the case. For example, the Integrity Committee has determined there is
no wrongdoing by an IG who uses his or her discretion to decide where
to apply limited audit and investigative resources even though the IG
is alleged to have ignored an area of importance to the complainant.
The Integrity Committee may also refer an allegation to another agency
with the appropriate jurisdiction. For example, the Integrity Committee
may refer equal employment opportunity complaints to the Equal
Employment Opportunity Office of the affected agency, and refer
allegations of illegal political activity, whistleblower retaliation,
or prohibited personnel practices to the Office of Special Counsel or
other agency as provided by law.[Footnote 12] In addition, the
Integrity Committee may close a case when the allegation is known to be
incorrect and refer the allegation to the subject IG for disposition as
deemed appropriate by the IG. Also, the Integrity Committee may close a
case after additional information is obtained from the subject of the
complaint which disproves the allegation. Where the source of the
allegation is known, the Integrity Committee provides the complainant
with information regarding the disposition of the allegation.
The Integrity Committee Chairperson may refer any complaint containing
allegations that present the possibility of criminal conduct to the
Public Integrity Section of DOJ. The Public Integrity Section then
determines whether the allegation, if substantiated, would constitute a
violation of federal criminal law. If the Public Integrity Section
determines that a criminal investigation is warranted, it will notify
the Integrity Committee and refer the matter to the appropriate law
enforcement agency. If the Public Integrity Section determines that a
criminal investigation is not warranted, the matter is returned to the
Working Group for further review.
The Integrity Committee reviews each complaint within its jurisdiction
to determine whether the allegation substantially involves
administrative misconduct such as a violation of law, rule, or
regulation; gross mismanagement; gross waste of funds; or abuse of
authority in the exercise of official duties.[Footnote 13] For example,
administrative misconduct may include allegations of questionable
travel costs and contracting practices, promotions and appointments of
IG office personnel, and conflicts of interest.
The Integrity Committee determines whether to perform an investigation
of allegations within its jurisdiction. Typically, allegations that the
Integrity Committee accepts for investigation clearly identify the
alleged wrongdoing by an IG or covered IG staff member and contain
supporting documentation. If the allegation lacks sufficient
information to proceed with an investigation, the Integrity Committee
may choose to take no further action or direct the Working Group to
make further inquiries to develop additional information for the
Integrity Committee to consider in determining whether an investigation
is warranted. If an allegation appears to have potential merit the
Integrity Committee will submit the matter to the Integrity Committee
Chairperson who will cause an investigation of the allegation to be
conducted. The Integrity Committee may request that the FBI conduct or
assist in the investigation of allegations, or it may request an
uninvolved IG office to perform the investigation under the control and
direction of the Integrity Committee Chairperson. These investigations
are to be conducted in accordance with the Quality Standards for
Investigations[Footnote 14] using the investigative procedures of the
investigating IG or as directed by the Integrity Committee Chairperson.
At the conclusion of an investigation, the investigating team reports
the facts and conclusions to the Integrity Committee. The Integrity
Committee determines whether the allegations under investigation are
substantiated and whether administrative misconduct has been
established. If warranted, the Integrity Committee forwards the report
of investigation along with a letter containing the findings, opinions,
and recommendations, to the Executive Chairperson of CIGIE. The
Executive:
Chairperson then notifies the Integrity Committee concerning the final
disposition of the matters in the investigative report and the case
file is closed.
The Integrity Committee may determine that allegations are not under
its jurisdiction because they do not allege wrongdoing by an IG or
certain IG staff as described by the Executive Order for the
allegations in the 3-year period we reviewed, or as indicated by the
Reform Act for allegations currently received. The Integrity Committee
may refer these allegations to another federal agency with appropriate
jurisdiction over the matter or refer them to the concerned IG for
disposition. For example, an allegation may allege wrongdoing by a
lower level staff member of an IG's office who acted without the
knowledge of the IG and therefore not meet the conditions for Integrity
Committee jurisdiction. Nevertheless, the Integrity Committee may refer
this information to the IG for possible review and correction of the
matter regarding the staff member. In addition, while determining
whether allegations are within its jurisdiction, the Integrity
Committee may obtain additional information that disproves the
allegation or determine that the allegations address matters that are
within the IG's discretion to decide.
The Integrity Committee's Activities Were Consistent with Requirements
of the Executive Order:
The Integrity Committee received and closed 165 allegations during
calendar years 2005 through 2007. Based on our review of these case
files, the activities of the:
Integrity Committee were consistent with the requirements of the
Executive Order and the Committee's implementing policy and procedures.
The documentation in the numbered case files at FBI Headquarters
indicate that the Integrity Committee provided a copy of each
allegation to the Pubic Integrity Section of DOJ for a determination as
to whether the allegation, if proven, would constitute a prosecutable
violation of federal criminal law. The Public Integrity Section
returned each of the allegations in our 3-year sample to the Integrity
Committee with its determination that a criminal investigation was not
warranted.
Out of a total of 67 federal agencies, departments, and entities with
statutory IGs as of December 31, 2007, 35 had IGs or IG staff involved
in allegations of wrongdoing over the 3-year period of our review. (See
enclosure IV.) The nature of the complaints made in the 165 allegations
can be grouped into seven types of alleged misconduct, as shown in
table 1.
Table 1: Allegations Against IGs and Their Staff:
1.
Nature of alleged misconduct: Alleged failure to investigate;
Examples of specific allegations: Allegations that IG investigations
were not done on issues that appeared, to the complainant, to warrant
them;
Number of allegations: 32.
2.
Nature of alleged misconduct: Alleged mismanagement, waste, and abuse;
Examples of specific allegations: Allegations that IG auditors had done
too much costly testing activity rather than sampling during an audit;
Number of allegations: 31.
3.
Nature of alleged misconduct: Alleged improper personnel decisions;
Examples of specific allegations: Complaints regarding promotions,
appointments, personnel records, and alleged racial discrimination;
Number of allegations: 29.
4.
Nature of alleged misconduct: Alleged improper investigative activity;
Examples of specific allegations: Alleged bias by an IG office for a
specific outcome, lack of timeliness, and a disregard for evidence;
Number of allegations: 25.
5.
Nature of alleged misconduct: Alleged independence issues;
Examples of specific allegations: Allegations of conflicts of interest
and work as redirected away from sensitive issues;
Number of allegations: 22.
6.
Nature of alleged misconduct: Alleged lack of compliance with laws and
regulations;
Examples of specific allegations: Allegations of questionable travel
costs and contracting practices subject to laws and regulations;
Number of allegations: 13.
7.
Nature of alleged misconduct: Other allegations;
Examples of specific allegations: Allegations included unprofessional
behavior and making false statements;
Number of allegations: 13.
Total allegations; 165.
Source: GAO analysis of Integrity Committee case files.
[End of table]
The Integrity Committee determined that 93 allegations were against an
IG or a Deputy IG and within its jurisdiction. The remaining 72
allegations were determined by the Integrity Committee to be outside
its jurisdiction because they involved lower level IG staff or agency
officials and failed to demonstrate administrative misconduct against
an IG, or IG staff member acting with the knowledge of the IG.
For the 93 allegations within its jurisdiction the Integrity Committee
took the following actions to close the case files.
* The Integrity Committee referred 41 allegations to other IG offices
for investigation, as part of 2 separate administrative investigations
the Committee conducted during the 3-year period of our review. One
investigation of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration
(NASA) IG involved 35 allegations and another investigation of the
Department of Defense (DOD) IG involved 6 allegations.[Footnote 15]
- The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) IG performed
the investigation of the allegations made against the NASA IG and
submitted the investigative results to the Integrity Committee on
August 30, 2006. The Chairperson of PCIE and ECIE advised the NASA
Administrator to determine the appropriate actions to address the
investigation's conclusions. The Integrity Committee stated that the
matter was resolved within the terms of the Executive Order when the
Chairperson of PCIE and ECIE informed them that he had accepted the
actions recommended by the NASA Administrator, and accordingly, the
case file was closed on April 26, 2007.[Footnote 16]
- The U.S. Postal Service (USPS) IG performed the investigation of the
allegations made against the DOD IG, from November 2, 2005, to April
25, 2006, and reported the results to the Integrity Committee on June
9, 2006. The Chairperson of PCIE and ECIE sent a letter to the Deputy
Secretary of Defense to suggest that DOD consider taking appropriate
steps to address observations made during the investigation and
included in the investigative report. However, the Integrity Committee
concluded that none of the allegations were substantiated by the
investigation and closed the case file on September 19, 2006.
* For 24 allegations, the Integrity Committee concluded that the IG or
Deputy IG had exercised the discretion of their office and found no
indications of administrative misconduct. For example, one complainant
alleged that the IG failed to perform investigations of possible fraud
at a medical school. The Integrity Committee closed the case file and
concluded that such decisions were made within the IG's discretion and
that the IG must decide where best to apply resources for
investigations.
* IGs provided additional information for the Committee's review on 17
of the allegations, and the Committee found that none of these
allegations involved actions that violated any laws, regulations, or
rules, and there were no instances of mismanagement, waste, or abuse of
authority. For example, a complainant alleged that an IG had taken
official travel not related to the duties of the office. The Integrity
Committee contacted the subject IG and requested a response to justify
the official travel. After reviewing the IG's documentation, the
Integrity Committee closed the case file.
* The Integrity Committee referred seven allegations back to the IGs
who were the subjects of the allegations for actions as deemed
appropriate by the IGs. These allegations generally related to
administrative complaints from IG staff and, as determined by the
Integrity Committee, did not rise to the criteria provided by the
implementing policy and procedures for administrative misconduct. For
example, a complainant alleged the IG had failed to investigate the
agency's illegal use of subpoenas. The Integrity Committee provided
clarification to the complainant to show the agency's actions were
allowed. In addition, the Integrity Committee determined that the IG
had the discretion to determine whether an investigation of the matter
was warranted.
* The Committee referred four allegations to another agency with
jurisdiction over the matters. Three of these allegations were referred
to the appropriate equal employment opportunity office and one was
referred to the Office of Special Counsel. Two of these allegations had
responses provided back to the Integrity Committee and the case files
were closed. The remaining two allegations were closed when the
referrals were made and the Integrity Committee did not require a
response.
The Integrity Committee took the following actions regarding the 72
allegations that it determined were not within its jurisdiction. These
allegations were either not directed at an IG or an IG staff member
acting with the knowledge of the IG, or failed to demonstrate any
administrative misconduct.
* The Committee referred 51 allegations to the responsible IGs for
action as deemed appropriate. For example, one complainant alleged that
the IG's office had failed to investigate allegations of fraud
associated with the award of a contract. The Integrity Committee
concluded that the allegation failed to show a substantial likelihood
of a violation of a law, regulation, or rule, nor gross mismanagement,
waste, or abuse of authority by the IG or the Deputy IG. The Integrity
Committee closed the case file for this allegation and referred the
complaint to the IG for action as deemed appropriate.
* For the remaining 21 allegations the committee:
- requested additional information in 10 cases from either the subjects
or the sources of the allegations before closing the case files due to
a lack of evidence of wrongdoing,
- referred 8 allegations to another agency with jurisdiction, and:
- determined that 3 of the allegations involved issues within the
discretion of the IG, and alleged no misconduct.
Reform Act Provides Additional Guidance and Increased Transparency for
Integrity Committee Activities:
The Reform Act established a statutory basis for the Integrity
Committee within CIGIE, and provided the Integrity Committee with
generally the same functions as those under the Executive Order to
receive, review, and refer for investigation allegations of wrongdoing
made against IGs and certain staff members of the IG offices. The
Reform Act also provides new guidance and greater transparency over
Integrity Committee activities than called for in Executive Order No.
12993.
The Reform Act requires the IGs to annually submit a designation of
positions within each IG's office whose holders are staff members
subject to review by the Integrity Committee. The Integrity Committee's
revised policy and procedures implementing the Reform Act state that
positions reporting directly to an IG are to be included, such as the
Deputy IG and the Counsel to the IG. In addition, other positions with
significant responsibilities should normally be included where it is
likely that an internal investigation regarding an allegation of
wrongdoing on the part of that staff member would lack an appearance of
objectivity. As an example, Assistant IGs may be specified for review
by the Integrity Committee. This guidance encourages the IGs to provide
a designation of positions beyond the IG and the Deputy IG.
The Reform Act also requires the Integrity Committee to establish
policies and procedures that ensure fairness and consistency in
conducting investigations and reporting the results. The Integrity
Committee's revised policy and procedures include steps to provide a
copy of the report of investigation to the IG or designated staff
member before the final consideration of the report by the Integrity
Committee.[Footnote 17] The IG or designated staff member has the
opportunity for comment concerning the report's accuracy and may submit
additional statements or documents for the Integrity Committee's
consideration.
In addition, the Reform Act enhances the transparency of the Integrity
Committee's process by establishing additional reporting requirements
to help ensure timely notification to Congress of its investigations
and other activities. The Reform Act requires the Integrity Committee
to provide an executive summary of any completed investigation along
with its recommendations to congressional committees with jurisdiction
within 30 days after the investigative results are provided to the
Executive Chairperson of CIGIE.[Footnote 18] In addition, the report of
investigation is to include any recommendations of the Integrity
Committee, including those on disciplinary action. Notification to
Congress of the investigative results with recommendations can allow
for additional oversight and help to ensure that meaningful corrective
actions will be taken on weaknesses identified by current and future
Integrity Committee investigations.
The Reform Act also requires the CIGIE to submit additional information
to both Congress and the President by the end of each calendar year on
the activities of the Integrity Committee for the preceding fiscal
year. This provides an opportunity for additional oversight of
Integrity Committee activities. The reported information is to include
the number of allegations received, referred to other agencies, and
referred for criminal investigation; as well as those allegations
referred to the Chairperson of the Integrity Committee for
investigation and those allegations closed without referral. In
addition, the report is to include the date the Committee received and
closed each allegation, the status of investigations, and a summary of
the findings of the investigations completed during the preceding
fiscal year. The first annual report, for fiscal year 2009, is due to
Congress by December 31, 2009.
In addition, the Integrity Committee's policy and procedures that
implemented the Executive Order included a definition of administrative
misconduct used to review allegations of wrongdoing. The revised policy
and procedures in response to the Reform Act include this definition
but add to it the consideration of matters that potentially involve
conduct so serious that it may undermine the independence or integrity
reasonably expected of an IG or a senior staff member in an IG office.
During our review, we suggested that the Committee update its policy
and procedures to make them consistent with the requirements of the
Reform Act. The Committee issued its revised policies and procedures,
The Council of the Inspectors General of Integrity and Efficiency,
Integrity Committee Policy and Procedures, in April 2009. We provided a
draft of our report to the FBI to obtain comments from the Integrity
Committee Chairperson, who is Assistant Director of the FBI's Criminal
Investigative Division. In response the FBI stated that it had reviewed
the draft report and had no comments.
As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents
of this report earlier, we will not distribute it until 30 days from
its date. At that time, we will send copies of the report to the
Integrity Committee, OMB Deputy Director for Management, the
Chairperson and Vice Chairperson of CIGIE, other congressional
committees, and interested parties. This report will also be available
at no charge on the GAO Web site at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. If
you have any questions or would like to discuss this report please
contact me at (202) 512-8486 or by e-mail at raglands@gao.gov. Major
contributors to this report are listed in enclosure V.
Signed by:
Susan Ragland:
Director:
Financial Management and Assurance:
[End of section]
Enclosure I:
Federal Agencies and Departments with IGs Established by the IG Act and
Appointed by the President:
Agency for International Development:
Corporation for National and Community Service:
Department of Agriculture:
Department of Commerce:
Department of Defense:
Department of Education:
Department of Energy:
Department of Health and Human Services:
Department of Homeland Security:
Department of Housing and Urban Development:
Department of the Interior:
Department of Justice:
Department of Labor:
Department of State:
Department of Transportation:
Department of the Treasury:
Department of Veterans Affairs:
Environmental Protection Agency:
Export-Import Bank:
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation:
Federal Housing Finance Agency:
General Services Administration:
National Aeronautics and Space Administration:
Nuclear Regulatory Commission:
Office of Personnel Management:
Railroad Retirement Board:
Small Business Administration:
Social Security Administration:
Tennessee Valley Authority:
Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration:
Source: CIGIE:
[End of section]
Enclosure II:
Designated Federal Entity IGs Established by the IG Act, as Amended,
with Appointment by Their Agency Heads:
Amtrak:
Appalachian Regional Commission:
Broadcasting Board of Governors[1]:
Commodity Futures Trading Commission:
Consumer Product Safety Commission:
Corporation for Public Broadcasting:
Denali Commission:
Election Assistance Commission:
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission:
Farm Credit Administration:
Federal Communications Commission:
Federal Election Commission:
Federal Labor Relations Authority:
Federal Maritime Commission:
Federal Reserve Board:
Federal Trade Commission:
Legal Services Corporation:
National Archives and Records Administration:
National Credit Union Administration:
National Endowment for the Arts:
National Endowment for the Humanities:
National Labor Relations Board:
National Science Foundation:
Peace Corps:
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation:
Postal Regulatory Commission:
Securities and Exchange Commission:
Smithsonian Institution:
United States International Trade Commission:
United States Postal Service:
Source: CIGIE:
[1] The Broadcasting Board of Governors is a designated federal entity
with oversight provided by the Department of State IG.
[End of section]
Enclosure III:
Agencies with Inspectors General Appointed under Statutes Other than
the IG Act:
Architect of the Capitol:
Central Intelligence Agency:
Government Accountability Office:
Government Printing Office:
Library of Congress:
Office of Director of National Intelligence[2]:
Special IG for Afghanistan Reconstruction:
Special IG for Iraq Reconstruction:
Special IG for the Troubled Asset Relief Program:
United States Capitol Police:
Source: CIGIE:
[2] The IG Act authorizes the Director of National Intelligence to
appoint an IG.
[End of section]
Enclosure IV:
Allegations Against IGs and Their Staff at Federal Departments,
Agencies, and Entities during Calendar Years 2005 through 2007:
1;
Federal entity: National Aeronautics and Space Administration;
Number of Allegations: 35.
2;
Federal entity: Department of Defense;
Number of Allegations: 15.
3;
Federal entity: Department of the Interior;
Number of Allegations: 9.
4;
Federal entity: Department of Veterans Affairs;
Number of Allegations: 9.
5;
Federal entity: Department of Homeland Security;
Number of Allegations: 8.
6;
Federal entity: Department of Transportation;
Number of Allegations: 8.
7;
Federal entity: Department of Agriculture;
Number of Allegations: 6.
8;
Federal entity: Nuclear Regulatory Commission;
Number of Allegations: 6.
9;
Federal entity: Department of State;
Number of Allegations: 6.
10;
Federal entity: United States Postal Service;
Number of Allegations: 6.
11;
Federal entity: Department of Education;
Number of Allegations: 5.
12;
Federal entity: Department of Health and Human Services;
Number of Allegations: 5.
13;
Federal entity: Environmental Protection Agency;
Number of Allegations: 4.
14;
Federal entity: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation;
Number of Allegations: 4.
15;
Federal entity: Internal Revenue Service (TIGTA);
Number of Allegations: 4.
16;
Federal entity: Railroad Retirement Board;
Number of Allegations: 4.
17;
Federal entity: Agency for International Development;
Number of Allegations: 3.
18;
Federal entity: Amtrak;
Number of Allegations: 3.
19;
Federal entity: Department of Commerce;
Number of Allegations: 3.
20;
Federal entity: Securities and Exchange Commission;
Number of Allegations: 3.
21;
Federal entity: Department of Energy;
Number of Allegations: 2.
22;
Federal entity: Department of Housing and Urban Development;
Number of Allegations: 2.
23;
Federal entity: General Service Administration;
Number of Allegations: 2.
24;
Federal entity: Office of Personnel Management;
Number of Allegations: 2.
25;
Federal entity: Appalachian Regional Commission;
Number of Allegations: 1.
26;
Federal entity: Department of Labor;
Number of Allegations: 1.
27;
Federal entity: Department of the Treasury;
Number of Allegations: 1.
28;
Federal entity: Federal Housing Finance Board;
Number of Allegations: 1.
29;
Federal entity: Legal Services Corporation;
Number of Allegations: 1.
30;
Federal entity: National Science Foundation;
Number of Allegations: 1.
31;
Federal entity: Office of Government Ethics;
Number of Allegations: 1.
32;
Federal entity: Office of Special Counsel;
Number of Allegations: 1.
33;
Federal entity: Peace Corps;
Number of Allegations: 1.
34;
Federal entity: Social Security Administration;
Number of Allegations: 1.
35;
Federal entity: Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction;
Number of Allegations: 1.
Total: 165.
Source: GAO analysis of Integrity Committee case files.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Enclosure V:
GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Susan Ragland, Director, (202) 512-8486:
Acknowledgments:
Financial Management and Assurance:
Jackson W. Hufnagle, Assistant Director:
Clarence A. Whitt, Analyst-in-Charge:
Bonnie L. Derby, Evaluator:
Office of General Counsel:
Francis Dymond, Assistant General Counsel:
Jacquelyn Hamilton, Deputy Assistant General Counsel:
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] Pub. L. No. 110-409, 122 Stat. 4302 (Oct. 14, 2008). The Reform
Act, among other things, established the Council of the Inspectors
General for Integrity and Efficiency (CIGIE), which replaced the PCIE
and ECIE. The Integrity Committee is a part of CIGIE.
[2] Pub. L. No. 95-452, 92 Stat. 1101 (Oct. 12, 1978) (codified, as
amended, at 5 U.S.C. App.).
[3] The first President's Council on Integrity and Efficiency was
established in 1981 under Executive Order No. 12301, Integrity and
Efficiency in Federal Programs (May 26, 1981).
[4] The IGs in the legislative branch were added as members of CIGIE.
[5] S. Rep. No. 110-262 at 5 (Feb. 22, 2008).
[6] H.R. Rep. 110-354 at 9 (Sept. 27, 2007).
[7] Id.
[8] S. Rep. No. 110-262 at 3 (Feb 22, 2008).
[9] Id at 6.
[10] Id.
[11] The Reform Act requires each IG to annually submit to the
Chairperson of the Integrity Committee a designation of positions whose
holders are staff members subject to Integrity Committee review.
[12] The Reform Act requires that agency heads receiving allegations
referred to them by the Integrity Committee provide a report containing
the results of their investigation to the Integrity Committee.
[13] In its revised policy and procedures to address changes in the
Reform Act, the Integrity Committee added to its definition of
administrative misconduct to include conduct so serious that it may
undermine the independence or integrity reasonably expected of an IG or
IG staff member.
[14] Quality Standards for Investigations, PCIE and ECIE (Washington,
D.C.: December 2003).
[15] The DOD IG was the subject of 15 allegations during the 3-year
period; 6 were closed after the Integrity Committee investigation and 9
were closed without an investigation.
[16] For more information on the outcome of this Integrity Committee
investigation refer to GAO, Inspectors General: Actions Needed to
Improve Audit Coverage of NASA, GAO-09-88 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 18,
2008).
[17] Executive Order No. 12993 previously allowed the Integrity
Committee the discretion to ask the subject IG for comments before
disposition.
[18] The Reform Act requires that the Executive Chairperson of CIGIE
receive the report of investigation no later than 30 days after
completion of the investigation.
[End of section]
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the federal government for the American people.
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]
and select "E-mail Updates."
Order by Phone:
The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s Web site,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm].
Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537.
Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional
information.
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548: